skip to main |
skip to sidebar
What is different about the kinds of socializing that happens in these spaces? Does the 3D aspect make much difference?
The 3D-aspect of internet changes the circumstances, as the avatar is a reflection of you. When one write simple text, one feels more secure as no one can put a face to the words, but having an avatar completely changes that! Instant message programs such as MSN, mIRC, etc. give you the possibility of doing something else while chatting, whilst when is in a 3D-world one is more into the conversation as it isn't as easy to simply flip in and out of the game as it is with a MSN-chat window.
The benefits of a 3D-world range from being able to choose what you look like to the attitude you wish you had. It gives people the opportunity to be their alter-ego. That is what I can imagine is so fascinating about the various 3D-worlds, they really give you the opportunity to easily be your perhaps "true" self without there being any (physical) consequences. You can edit everything about your avatar if you want, and at the same time you can actually choose to look like yourself in real life if you so wish.
MSN (and other programs alike) are great for simple quick chatting, as one does not have to devote all one's attention to it. I know from experience that I like to have MSN open all the time, so basically when I boot up my computer, I start up MSN as I then feel "connected". And people may write to me or I may write to them, but I would say that 8 out of 10 times I would be doing other things simultaneously. e.g. playing internet poker, other games, surfing the net etc.
Therefore I would say that I prefer IM-chatting to being in a 3D-world!
My assessment of the word and excel task:
I found the tasks very easy and knew most of them, the only one I didn't know was the Track Changes function. It is really useful when I have to add notes to my own work. Otherwise This task could perhaps have been more beneficial for others more so than myself, as I spent a lot of time on both programs.
Is this an accurate article?
Does it cover all the basic facts that you'd need to understand this topic?
Does this article follow the wikipedia guidelines for useful articles?
Is this article fair and balanced, or is it biased towards a particular side or argument?
I have taken two topics of which I would consider myself an expert on; Counter-Strike (a computer game) and Entourage (a TV-show). I will evaluate the following wiki-pages using the questions above as criteria.
Is this an accurate article?CS: Very accurate, practically everything one would want to find and know about the game is there, and presumably accurate as the figures come from VALVe.
Entourage: Accurate background history on the show and the producers, with some interesting information some would call irrelevant trivia!
Does it cover all the basic facts that you'd need to understand this topic?
CS: It covers more than all the basic facts, it not only explains what the game is, it also lists the changes made between the different beta phases.Entourage: Very much, only thing perhaps lacking is diagrams of the popularity of the show in various parts of the world.
Does this article follow the wikipedia guidelines for useful articles?I would have to say yes that it does for both of them, it starts off with a brief introduction and then leads into more detail as all other wiki-articles do.
Is this article fair and balanced, or is it biased towards a particular side or argument?CS: Very fair and balanced.
Entourage: One gets the impression that the person who wrote this is an Entourage fan, as it is described in a "positive light"!
It is hard to say what changes I would make, but perhaps I would briefly discuss similar shows/games, so people that may not have seen either the show or the game can somehow relate to the articles better.
How do the ideas from Walter Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" apply to contemporary digital media?
"Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" has a valid idea that art has a form of "aura", and when reproduced it loses a piece of it. This is very similar to a belief some people have; when being photographed it takes a piece of the sole away.
The digital media and its produce today is an art form easily accessible for the masses and in most cases produced to reach the masses. One could say that it loses it "aura" but I rather believe that it loses it uniqueness as it becomes a common image everyone has seen and therefore lacks rarity. A good example of this would be advertisements which are created for targeting the masses as much as possible are soleness as they are pieces of art simply created to attract attention and convey a message to purchase something; either a service or product.
Digital media in the form of photography has lost a lot of credibility as one nowadays can re-touch any picture/person to look a certain way. Therefore people can't believe what they see as it is all a manufactured product of digital media.
There was a time when "Art" was made by artists who were skilled professionals. Now that anyone with a computer can create things digitally (music, images, videos, etc), what does that mean for "art"?
In my opinion it means that art and creating masterpieces demand more and now really have to have a "wow" factor before being a success as now anyone can do it. And to break out and make yourself a "known" digital artist requires creating exceptional pieces of work. There are many people out there with the knowledge of how to create music, usually techno/tranquility as these genres are solely made on the computer, but require great skill and creativity as it is so popular to make. And the way you can judge a persons piece of music is by the "download popularity" of it. The more downloads the more recognized. And concerning art pieces, I believe that the possibles of digital media have broadened the spectrum of what art is, as now things such as themes, backgrounds and icons are pieces of art as much as anything else.
Is a photoshopped image "authentic"?
No, but to a degree yes. I don't believe photoshopped images of people are authentic, but images where you crop out the sides of pictures I would still consider authentic!
Do digital "things" have an "aura" (in Benjamin's terms)?
Yes, I believe even digital arts pieces intended for billboards have an aura, but not a positive one. But digital pieces of scenery definitely have a positive and calming aura. I personally am very fond of digital art pieces of scenery. I am a big fan of having a calming scenery as a desktop background and can highly recommend the site: www.deviantart.com, fantastic site for people that enjoy photography or digital art.
